Dear Jeff, Thank you for your notes and apologies for not responding earlier. These questions are very helpful so please do thank the GAC colleagues for sending these before hand. I also wanted to let you know that the Council leadership has just met and discussed these topics. By and large, we agree with your comments on the approach in general and to the various questions. Our plan is to divvy up these topics among the three of us: EDDP Phase 2A: Philippe DNS Abuse: Tatiana Accuracy and SSAD: Pam Thank you once again for all the work you have done in helping the Council prepare for the GAC-Council session and we look forward to a fruitful dialogue with the GAC. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent At:2021 Mar. 24 (Wed.) 00:16 Recipient:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:Re: [council] Informal/preliminary questions & messages from GAC leadership &topic leads I just wanted to follow up on this to see: if you had any questions if there is anything we want to send to the GAC in advance of our discussion tomorrow and how we wanted to address these questions Given the diversity of views on each of these subjects, I strongly recommend assigning topic leads for these. Just let me know if there is anything else you need from me. Sincerely, Jeff Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com http://jjnsolutions.com From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman via council Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 9:46 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] FW: Informal/preliminary questions & messages from GAC leadership &topic leads Dear Council Members, Please find enclose a document provided to me this morning from the GAC Point of Contact to the GNSO containing questions (and context) that GAC Leadership and Topic Leads would like to see addressed during our March 24th bilateral. My General Comments: For most (if not all) of these questions, I do not believe that there is necessarily a unified Council view. Rather, I believe that there are different views from the different constituencies and SGs. We should also remind the GAC that the GNSO Council is the manager of the policy process and does not “represent” the GNSO as a whole when it comes to policy issues. Council members can certainly speak individually on their own view or on the view of the constituency/stakeholder group. Where there has been Council action, then of course the Council can speak to the reasons why they took that action (or decided not to take a different action). Therefore, the questions on what the Council did on the SSAD recommendations is certainly one the Council can and should speak to (page 3). With respect to the questions on Accuracy Scoping, that also would be appropriate for the Council to speak to (page 2-3) because it asks what our view is on potential policy development activity. However, in my opinion, the first two questions on ePDP Phase 2a are not ones where the Council can respond (as representing the GNSO). These two questions are ones that really should be answered at this point by the SGs/Cs (to the extent that they have positions on these). There is a question on whether the Council would support the continuation of ePDP Phase 2A. This is a good question for the Council to respond to if it so chooses. The questions on DNS Abuse that are presented are not ones that the Council (as a Council) has taken a position, and my guess is that each SG and C have their own view. For those questions above where the Council does not (or should not) have a view, I would recommend that we nominate no more than 2 or 3 people that can speak to each of these questions and represent the different points of view. If we make it a free for all, I believe that any one of these questions could spark conversation that would take up the entire time. Just as the GAC appoints Topic Leads for each of these, I think it would be good for us to do the same. And we also want the GAC to speak as well. This is one of the few times that we get to interact with the GAC and it would be great to hear their views as well as having us express our views in one direction. I would like to respond to my GAC Point of contact with some feedback prior to our bilateral session. It would be great for us to respond by thanking them for these questions, set their expectations as to what we can and cannot address as a Council, and potentially sending them a list of questions for them to think about. Sincerely, Jeff Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com http://jjnsolutions.com From:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 8:10 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Cc: gac-leadership@icann.org; julia.charvolen@icann.org; gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: AW: Agenda for GNSO and GAC session at ICANN70 - informal/preliminary questions&messages from GAC leadership&topic leads Dear Jeff Please find attached some informal and preliminary questions and messages the GAC topic leads have prepared (under the guidance of GAC Leadership) concerning topics 1-3 of our agenda next week. We would be very thankful if you could relay these to GNSO Council, and we hope this helps to conduct a very fruitful discussion at the GAC-GNSO bilateral next week. Kind regards Jorge Von: Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen@icann.org> Gesendet: Montag, 15. März 2021 18:22 An: gnso-secs@icann.org Cc: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; GACLEADERSHIP <gac-leadership@icann.org> Betreff: Agenda for GNSO and GAC session at ICANN70 Dear All, As requested, this email is to confirm the agenda for the ICANN70 GAC joint session with the GNSO scheduled for Wednesday 24 March. The agenda is as follows: EPDP/ (Phase 2 and 2a) / SSAD DNS Abuse Accuracy Scoping Team Next steps on collaborating on Subsquent Procedures of New gTLDs Thank you. Kind regards, Julia
